The Incredible Hulk

From an antique tragedy interspersed with Marvel action, we've dropped a few steps down. And remained standing in a contradictory mezzanine. Five years after Ang Lee's vision, which was received rather hesitantly, it is no wonder that we were supposed to forget about it from the very beginning. For my part, I could see that version a hundred times, but I give up because I know I am in the clear minority. And yet Louis Leterrier is so excited about the previously overlooked Hulk-smash that he doesn't care much about character depth or traumatic inserts, and the Brazilian intro annoys even him. As for the central characters and their performers, I have to frown a bit as well, because Betty is nothing more than a lovely catalyst for Banner's emotions this time, and Edward Norton's portrayal of the titular hero is occasionally disappointingly shallow. So why the high rating in the end? Because every action scene is an explosive, impressive spectacle that takes your breath away, and Blonsky a.k.a. Abomination boldly joins the gallery of marvel villains waiting to be cursed in the future, for whom I regularly have a weakness. The decisive factor for the fourth star is that this version of Hulk works solely and exclusively as bait for The Avengers. It's true that Iron Man, Thor, and Captain America are a class or two better, leaving Bruce as a small green orphan child, but from a rather unimpressive superhero side gig he ultimately matured into a pleasant one-off treat. (27/10/2008)

Compared to Lee's Hulk, this one is filmed without a shred of an idea. The story unfolds in the style of "action - boredom - more action - boredom - a bit of suspense before the ending - boredom - final overstuffed mega-action". Of all the characters, I liked the villain Blonsky the most (I can take Tim Roth anywhere, anytime, especially when he plays a madman), and that probably wasn't the intention either. Letterier wants to impress mainly with the digital effects, but they are not very good, and at the end he piles so many on top of each other that it's unbearable, the unsympathetic Edward Norton has one facial expression throughout the film and Liv Tyler has two. But above all, it is sorely lacking in perspective! Everything is presented with such awkward seriousness... It was simply terrible. (09/09/2009)

A unique cast versus primitively crafted characters at the level of 2D PC games. Blockbuster ambitions versus B-movie clichés. Straight-faced tacky stylization and fetishized straightforward and self-serving militaristic action. Simply put, The Incredible Hulk is a “completely new level of weird”, or an entertaining guilty pleasure worthy of the Golden Raspberry Award for the worst movie of the year. (19/07/2008)

Bruce Banner would have be pleased with this approach. Occasionally he would have been so enthusiastic about it that he would purr like a little baby at his mother’s breast. And in some places he would be so pissed with it that his elastic pants would get too small even for his alter ego. The Incredible Hulk is an amazing joy ride along a sinusoid graph. Nah, I’m kidding. About the sinusoid graph. While at some points and in some scenes it works even better than Ang Lee’s version, as a whole it is a ride half-way to nowhere. Lee’s adaptation is more “Banneresque", while Leterrier’s version is unequivocally “Hulky". How significant. It’s up to you which you like best. I’m reminded of Marvel’s first movie attempt - Iron Man. In that movie, the juice like the style and the actors worked well, but the action element, the finale and even the villain was rather subdued. Here it’s almost precisely the other way round. The villain and the action are ok (but still no miracle), but the rest is just a bit wishy-washy. For instance sparks fly between Norton and Tyler as they would in a microwave oven during a power blackout. Paradoxically it works more at the moments when he appears in that miserable CGI guise. And the movie is rather lifeless in comparison with Iron Man. No jokes, no snappy comebacks (all hail a couple of exceptions). But I’m not saying it’s bad. In the end we have two good genre movies in place of one great one. But, as the ending hints, there’s a lot more in store (and we’ll probably see it soon). Oh, and one more criticism. I would probably rather have seen Liv’s bare chest rather than Norton’s. So fans of America’s substitute for their missing mythology will have a reason to be happy. The rest of us have another quality picture in front of us to join the rather thin ranks of colorfully saucy comic book movies. Somehow, right now I feel like watching a classic version of Jekyll and Hyde... (19/06/2008)

I wasn't thrilled that the first Hulk’s original footsteps were abandoned, but it didn't turn out as badly as I expected. In fact, it turned out unexpectedly well. Although the mystery, cleverness, and fatefulness that Ang Lee delivered a few years ago are gone, we're getting a pure-bred action comic book movie, which, for The Hulk, is probably for the first time. I really enjoyed the unchanged Banner's chase scene with the soldiers on the Favela roofs, and I was glad that Leterrier approached it with the same care as, say, the fight between Blonsky and Mr. Green. Edward Norton was great as usual, and Roth and Hurt make worthy opponents. Only Liv Tyler sometimes seemed “weird". I also have to praise highly the music of Craig Armstrong, who was really playful with the soundtrack. Plus, for fans, we also have references to the Avengers and a visit from Robert Downey Jr. I had more fun than I’ve had in a long time. (18/09/2008)